AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed BashirUdDin, J.—By a common judgment dated 1.9.1998 the two writ petitioners of SWP No. 789/87 and SWP No. 790/87 have
been given the relief after their order of termination dated 16.7.87 was quashed as under;
.... As such order annexure C has been passed without application of mind. This order is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to hold the post
of electrician. He would not entitled to any back wages as in these proceedings it is not possible to hold whether he was gainfully employed or
not....
This judgment and order is under challenge in these letter patent appeals.
Writ petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi was appointed as an attendant against the post of electrician and the other writ petitioner Nazir Ahmad Dar
was also appointed as an attendant, class IV cadre, by respondent No 2 vide orders dated 11.4.1987 and 23 4 1987 respectively. Abdul Rashid
Sofi. after the appointment, was deputed to ITI Srinagar for undergoing refresher training course for three months in electrician trade, whereas,
Nazir Ahmad Dar was asked to attend the respondent's units at Tral. However, on 16.7.1987 services of both the writ petitioners were
terminated. The reason given was that the proposed plant of Animal Biproduct was not commissioned and that Abdul Rashid Sofi failed to
produce certificate from ITI with respect to electrician trade. The learned Single Judge found that the reasons and basis for termination of the
services of two petitioners were untenable and the whole assumption of respondents, the petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi was not trained electrician is
wholly wrong and that there was no such condition that the petitioners, who were appointed on regular basis, were to be continued in service in
case the contemplated plant of Animal Biproduct was commissioned. Respondents having failed to rebut the cases, as made out by the petitioners,
on record, the orders were held unsustainable. The impugned orders of termination were found to have been passed without application of mind
and therefore, quashed
The counsel Mr. M, Amin. Govt. Advocate, submits that the respondents were not given an opportunity to file counter, product; the record and
put up their defence before the Court. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi's failure to produce ITI typing
certificate has led to his termination. Though the noncommissioning of plant as an additional reason for termination of service of two writ petitioners
has been mentioned, but same is not put forth as a ground warranting termination of service of the petitioners.
Examination of the writ record reveals that SWP No. 790/87 filed by Abdul Rashid Sofi was admitted to hearing on 19.2.1991 after the
respondents had repeatedly failed to file objections and show cause against admission after motion stage notice on 7.9.87. Even so after admission
rule was issued and respondents asked to file reply/counter. Yet respondents, despite appearance through the present counsel, repeatedly failed to
file counter/reply till the matter was heard and decided on 1.9.1998. For over seven years, respondents took no steps to defend the case. There is
nothing on record to show that the respondents were prevented from producing the record or placing their case at any point of time before the
Court. The stand of respondents is not better in the other writ petition, SWP No. 789/87, filed by Nazir Ahmad Dar. Even after admission of this
writ petition on 29.9.87. respondents have at no point of time taken any step whatsoever to defend the case, so much so, that even reply/counter
has not been filed. No record has ever been produced before the Court. The contention of the appellant is baseless and wholly untenable. The
learned Single Judge is justified in concluding on record that the reasons of plant, being nonfunctional and petitioner Abdul Rashid Sofi having been
not a trained electrician, is wholly wrong. These reasons for terminating the services of petitioners are on wrong assumption and without any basis.
The termination orders suffer from nonapplication of mind and are passed in a casual manner. From facts and circumstances on record, the action
of respondents, in terminating the appellants, can be fairly stated to be unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The judgment and order in appeal is not
shown vitiated on any ground.
In result, we find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.